On Wednesday, the Washington Post carried a remarkable article reporting that according to U.S. government assessments, the U.S. military escalation in Afghanistan has failed.
The Post's Greg Miller reported that
An intense military campaign aimed at crippling the Taliban has so far failed to inflict more than fleeting setbacks on the insurgency
Miller explains why this is so:
Escalated airstrikes and special operations raids have disrupted Taliban movements and damaged local cells. But officials said that insurgents have been adept at absorbing the blows and that they appear confident that they can outlast an American troop buildup set to subside beginning next July."The insurgency seems to be maintaining its resilience," said a senior Defense Department official involved in assessments of the war. Taliban elements have consistently shown an ability to "reestablish and rejuvenate," often within days of routed by U.S. forces, the official said, adding that if there is a sign that momentum has shifted, "I don't see it."
So, since the policy of military escalation has failed, according to the U.S. government's own assessments, we should expect that in December, when President Obama promised that the policy will be reviewed, we should see a fundamental change in policy. Right?
But, according to the same Washington Post report, "no major change in strategy is expected in December."
How could it be, that the policy has failed, according to official U.S. government assessments, and yet no change is expected when the promised review occurs?
One possible explanation would be that while the policy is failing according to stated Pentagon objectives, it is succeeding according to unstated Pentagon objectives. The Pentagon is not succeeding in degrading the Taliban's military capacity. But the Pentagon is, apparently, succeeding in degrading the Taliban's political capacity: in particular, the Taliban's political capacity to strike a deal that ends the war and enforce the deal on its mid-level commanders and footsoldiers. This would be dangerously counterproductive if your goal were to end the war, but if your goal is to make a peace deal more difficult in order to facilitate a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan, maybe you don't think this is counterproductive, because a feasible peace deal almost certainly implies a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces.
An op-ed in Tuesday's New York Times by anthropologist Scott Atran notes that
The United States claims to have killed thousands of Taliban in recent months, mostly foot soldiers and midlevel commanders. But those 25-year-old foot soldiers are being replaced by teenage fighters, and the 35-year-old midlevel commanders by 20-something students straight out of the religious chools called madrasas, which are the only form of education available in many rural areas.
These younger commanders and their fiercely loyal fighters are increasingly removed from the dense networks of tribal kinship and patronage, or qawm, and especially of friendship born of common experiences, or andiwali, that bind together the top figures in the established insurgent groups like the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani network. Indeed, it is primarily through andiwali - overlapping bonds of family, schooling, years together in camps, combat service, business partnership - that talks between the adversaries, including representatives of Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, and Mullah Omar, the Taliban's ultimate leader, have continued over the years.These new Taliban warriors, however, are increasingly independent, ruthless and unwilling to compromise with foreign infidels and their associates.
Atran notes that "recently the Quetta Shura sent a Muslim scholar to chastise a group of youthful commanders in Paktia Province who were not following Mullah Omar's directives; they promptly killed him."
The Afghanistan that the Pentagon is producing with its current policy is one in which a peace deal will be more difficult to reach and to enforce; that we know. The question is whether this is a deliberate result of Pentagon policy. If there is a meaningful review of the policy in December that leads to a significant change towards deescalation and serious negotiations, then one will be able to plausibly argue that the current policy was merely a disastrous, deadly and counterproductive mistake which killed many Americans and Afghans for no reason. But if the review is fake and the escalation policy continues, even though the result of current policy is clear, the more sinister explanation - that the Pentagon is making peace more difficult on purpose - will be much more plausible.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
“…if your goal is to make a peace deal more difficult in order to facilitate a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan, maybe you don't think this is counterproductive, because a feasible peace deal almost certainly implies a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces.”
Now connect the above quote to the geopolitical reasons behind the never-to-end occupation and brutal suppression of “insurgent” resistance.
Domination of the Mideast in order to control petroleum resources is a goal shared by both neoCONs and neoLIBs. The immediate profitability of endless military conflict helps insure it continuation. The extensive and on-going base-building should dispel any notion that US policy is anything other than permanent military occupation.
Right, in the sense of the wod "failure" as understood by users of contemporary English. However, it's meaning, according to another dictionary I consulted, would be "success".
D.C. NEWSPEAK DICTIONARY:
"Success" : In war, a long, bloody, costly and militarily unsolvable conflict; it is successful insofar as the goals in its continuation are unattainable, and can be redrawn ad infinitum, thereby maximizing the profit of private entities such as mercenary companies and logistical support corporations, otherwise known as "friends of D.C.", the demoralization of the public morale and the transfer of wealth from same to the aforementioned private entities.
"Failure": With regards to foreign policy, the complete and entire lack of a casus belli, or justification for war, as well as the lack of means and opportunity to create one.
Please keep in mind that those in the service despise war MORE than those who are not in the service. They are the ones war affects the most. They are the ones who have to watch their friends killed by Al Qaeda and Taliban IEDs and bullets. They are the ones who have to spend years apart from their families. To suggest that the Pentagon would, on purpose, sabotage a chance to make peace is preposterous.
Whosoever is suggesting our military is to remain in a none US territory or the nation opposes the constitution. Opposing the constitution they are require by it to be removed from office. Here our nation has 10% unemployment, failing infrastructure, reduction in education funding and homelessness rising while we are throwing money away on a military objective designed only to maintain a military presence in another nation. How is that constitutional with none of the spending doing anything for our nation? Who in Sam's hell is in charge here? Whoever it is should be "tared and feathered" for such unconstitutional actions.
No one keeps the war going more than 'alternapundits' who continue to ask these gee whiz questions.
It may not have been riveting but I don’t believe I dozed off at any point.
I did not hear one mention of Iraq or Afghanistan.
I also saw elsewhere how the head of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, scolded Gorbachev for suggesting the Afghan occupation is ”unwinnable”.
And can you guess who he said is coming to help win it? Russian troops, no less.
I’m sure the Afghanis can’t wait to see the Russians again but I doubt if they will greet them with “sweets and flowers.” (copyright A. Chalibi.)
So I guess everything is going according to plan and there’s no need to worry.
Depends what the plan is. Right?
You need an enemy for that.